Nothing wrong with more kids being able to play sports.
Plus, it's a good way to make it a cultural normal. The best place to change cultural norms is at schools. If they grow up seeing that a girl wearing a headscarf is normal they're not going to treat them in a bigotry way (or less so). It was frowned upon once upon a time for women to drive cars, now nobody thinks twice about seeing women driving a car.

Obviously Islam is cancer and it would be better to not force girls to wear headscarves, to begin with. But if they're gonna wear them anyway we might as well let them play sports. There's no loss in it.

Also, that girl who gets to play sports ... chances will be better for her to go further. That taste of freedom & acceptance may help her to alter her own culture - make it less insulur - more comfortable addapting to their new surroundings.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(04-05-2017 01:34 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: I think it's fine. I don't understand why you have a problem with this. The basketball headgear is kinda cute. How does this do you harm? Is it a requirement that you must be able to see their hair?

In fencing you do you think it's wrong they cover their face? Are you personally against swimcaps?

Uh... people are failing to acknowledge that hijabs are worn solely as a definitive public statement of being a Muslim—and an often offensive one in secular countries such as Australia. It has nothing to do with "protection from injury" in any way. Fencing masks and swim caps are (obviously) not a religious requirement, but a sport-related necessity for safety and speed.

If this legislation sneaks through, then female basketball will be the only globally-sanctioned sport to allow the wearing of religious paraphernalia. Which will then open the floodgates for every other religious nutter to push for the same thing within their sport of choice.

We already have a case of taxpayers paying $45,000 to install curtains at a public swimming pool so Muslim women can have privacy during female-only exercise classes. The local council has won an exemption from equal opportunity laws to run the sessions outside normal opening hours, and says the privacy screen is needed for "cultural reasons"—or more correctly, by religious extremists.

This follows moves by other councils to introduce women-only sessions for the Muslim community, such as a different local council asking a tribunal to approve a ban on uncovered shoulders and thighs for those attending family events at one of their taxpayer-funded swimming pools.

—Apparently these people reckon that the equal opportunity and ant-discrimination laws shouldn't apply to them?

Apparently you think that you're getting offended is grounds for trying to define how people are allowed to dress? Apparently you don't understand what non-discrimination and equal opportunity mean.

For your benefit I will educate you:

Non-discrimination means that you will not be targetted e.g. by cops, teachers or other people, for wearing religious dress, or conversely for not being religious.

Equal opportunity means that practising your religion or the lack thereof does not preclude you from economic and other opportunities.

This is not difficult, although to be fair lots of people the world over seem to love prescribing what people - most often women - shall wear or how they shall behave in order to be accepted in "their" society.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(04-05-2017 12:38 PM)SYZ Wrote: I consider this sort of thing to be yet another example of the insidious nature of the Islamic religionists to—literally—contaminate otherwise nominally Christian or largely secular Western societies...

East African Muslim girls practice basketball
In their new uniforms in Minneapolis.

One of the absurdities claimed is that hijabs, turbans and yarmulkes will "minimise the risk of injuries, and preserve the consistency of uniform colours".

Really? More so than this...

American professional basketball player Breanna Stewart says: "I think it would mean a lot... Obviously with what’s going on in this world, we strive for equality. I think when you’re on the court or playing your sport, that’s your safe haven to get away from everything else that’s going on. It’s huge for them to be able to feel welcomed on the court and play".

—What the fuck does all that snivelling drivel mean?

They look alright to me. Personally I prefer them to bare it all, like the Zulu, but that would be indecent exposure to prudes in the west. I guess to each his own.

I take it that their East African ancestry is important to you.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg

(05-05-2017 11:51 AM)SYZ Wrote: If this legislation sneaks through, then female basketball will be the only globally-sanctioned sport to allow the wearing of religious paraphernalia. Which will then open the floodgates for every other religious nutter to push for the same thing within their sport of choice.

Perhaps every sport should ban people competing with bushy beards or people competing with Muslim names.

(05-05-2017 12:46 PM)morondog Wrote: Apparently you think that you're getting offended is grounds for trying to define how people are allowed to dress? Apparently you don't understand what non-discrimination and equal opportunity mean.

For your benefit I will educate you:

Non-discrimination means that you will not be targetted e.g. by cops, teachers or other people, for wearing religious dress, or conversely for not being religious.

Equal opportunity means that practising your religion or the lack thereof does not preclude you from economic and other opportunities.

This is not difficult, although to be fair lots of people the world over seem to love prescribing what people - most often women - shall wear or how they shall behave in order to be accepted in "their" society.

I can see some problems here as regards providing equitable treatment for all religions; also some possible conflict with the establishment clause of the Constitution. What is in fact being done, is favoring one particular religion above others.

There are numerous cases of public schools, for example, disallowing the wearing of religious paraphernalia during class time or school sponsored events. These have included, but not been limited to: crucifixes, turbans, crosses, yarmulkes, etc. The push to allow the hijab in similar contexts is a request for special treatment, not equity. Will Buddhists play in ankle-length saffron robes? Will worshipers of Apollo be allowed to play naked? Suppose a Sikh student insists on being allowed to wear his kirpan while playing basketball?

The general standard adopted has been that it is simpler and more equitable to deny all religious clothing and iconry, than to start making exceptions that might be perceived as showing favoritism.

I also question whether the girls are, as someone said "free to choose" to wear the hijab, when they are being told by parents and their other Islamic teachers that they are required to wear it.

For the record:

* The official federal definition for "discrimination" is:

"Any distinction of one person or a group of persons from others, either
intentionally, by neglect, or by the effect of actions or lack of actions based on
race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability."

States, counties, and even municipalities may add additional classes, and even different branches of the federal government sometimes add more categories (e.g., veteran status), but this is the basic, cover-all definition.

The way this is usually interpreted in civil rights trainings -- which I have both participated in, and given -- is to say "'discrimination' is treating someone differently, based on their membership in a protected class."